wakkytabbaky wrote: » even real life aint got system to tell whos the aggresor when a third party joins in late, obviously there are exceptions but you get the point. gotta jump in the middle and figure out who the bad guy is if you are gonna interrupt em other wise leave em alone. if there was a aggresor icon / marking then you will see people instigating fights just to get the other player tagged as an aggressor for more drama and no one likes drama.
Saabynator wrote: » But in normal PvX games, people WILL take advantage, if they can gain something, without losing much.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » If you ask almost any pver, they'll tell you that they don't want to be attacked in the open world.
cupi wrote: » It depends, I would say what matters alot here are the builds. On even xp/gear grounds, someone specialized for Pve probably won't be able to hold it up against someone who's build is jacked towards consistent PVP
Saabynator wrote: » One thing I do like about this, is that you cant spec for 100 % PvE, and still have an edge in PvP. To be competative, you need abilities up, that work well in PvP. I like that idea. It worked well in other games. You have a choice to make around your own security.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » There won't be a pvp/pve separation in gear. And we currently don't know what kind of mobs we'll have, so it's impossible to say if any of the skillset builds will be stronger in pve rather than in pvp, or the other way around.
Noaani wrote: » This is because you use different tactics against each. A plan that works well in PvE will often not work in PvP, and vice versa. Thus, the optimal PvE builds will - at a minimum - work to emphasize the tactics used in PvE, while the optial PvP builds will emphasize PvP tactics.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Noaani wrote: » This is because you use different tactics against each. A plan that works well in PvE will often not work in PvP, and vice versa. Thus, the optimal PvE builds will - at a minimum - work to emphasize the tactics used in PvE, while the optial PvP builds will emphasize PvP tactics. Like I said in that comment, this would highly depend on the difference between pve and player skillset design. If pve is overdesigned in some places, while player skillsets have a hole there - yes, there's gonna be obviously-separate builds. But I personally hope this kind of design is not the case. I'm sure EQ was overdesigned like that, but what about AA? Was it overbalanced the other way or was some gear just optimal for both situations?
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I'd like to hear valid reasoning why corrupted players should obtain corruption while defending themselves from random noncombatant players attacking them, but it also being fine that someone hunting them for their corruption to not give those defensive kills corruption at all? If anything it would make more sense to be the other way around, but even then it is still a bad design. But that's the exact point. The former are just randoms that happen to come across the Red and are, at best, opportunists, while the latter are professionals who literally have tracking for the PKer. If you kill someone in a vengeful mob - that will only make them more angry, but if you kill a merc that was sent to hunt you - it'll be hushed up, because hired kills is not something that's widely advertised.
Dolyem wrote: » I'd like to hear valid reasoning why corrupted players should obtain corruption while defending themselves from random noncombatant players attacking them, but it also being fine that someone hunting them for their corruption to not give those defensive kills corruption at all? If anything it would make more sense to be the other way around, but even then it is still a bad design.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » The only thing I've gathered from Stevens goal for the corruption system is to stop/minimize griefing. Otherwise if he didn't want PKing to happen in the first place he would easily accomplish that with an opt-out of PvP system option. Letting something happen and letting something happen frequently are not the same. Griefing only applies towards a single person (or, at worst, a small group of weak players), while letting PKs happen frequently would change how the game is perceived. If you ask almost any pver, they'll tell you that they don't want to be attacked in the open world. And I know that the classic answer is "well, then the game is not for them then", but this answer would apply to the PKers who want to kill for free as well. And a PK where you can endlessly defend yourself IS a free kill.
Dolyem wrote: » The only thing I've gathered from Stevens goal for the corruption system is to stop/minimize griefing. Otherwise if he didn't want PKing to happen in the first place he would easily accomplish that with an opt-out of PvP system option.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » What would exactly be your reasoning to go against designing a system that allows for non griefing PKing while simultaneously focusing punishment on griefing? Your goal seems less about mitigating griefing and more about punishing anyone who happens to PK someone who didn't fight back, justifiably or not. I've described my preference for the system in another thread Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » As for how many PKs should be happening. Imo <=1% of concurrents should be PKers (i.e. ~100 PKers across the entire map). This would then mean that around 2-3% would be victims. Absolute majority of those victims would come from places with valuable resources/mobs/bosses, so it'd be meaningful PKing. But, as Crow said, those PKers should only be able to do only a few kills at most, because after those they'll get hit with corruption-based stat dampening and shouldn't be able to kill more. Those few kills would create the 2-3% victims I mentioned, and would also give the PKers a PK count of ~3. Anything over this PK count should drastically increase the chance of dropping gear and should also give enough corruption to completely disable the PKer's combat ability. In other words, repeat killers wouldn't be able to do more than a single kill within a certain timeframe (balanced during A2). PK count reduction methods should be expensive as fuck, in terms of both time and resources/money. So anyone who wants to PK more often would have to spend their time reducing their PK count and earning money for that action, which in turn reduces their time PKing others. I'd personally also tie those methods to serving the nodes of the victims. I personally believe that this kind of system would keep the risk of getting ganked fairly high. Would keep the ability to PK someone when you really need to viable. Would bring node XP to the nodes of the victims. And, depending on how well the Guild/Node war declarations are balanced, would keep the unavoidable owPKing to a relatively low number. If people see 3% victims as "a murderbox" - I don't really know what to tell them And I'm fairly sure that if PKers are let to defend themselves from any attacker or are given a pure free kill (i.e. first PK doesn't give corruption) - that 1% from my preference would turn at least into 10%, mainly because strong groups will immediately start PKing whoeverthehell they want, cause no one will be able to do anything about it. This might already happen btw, but with compounding corruption on the PKer it can be stopped within just a few kills, but if the PKer is allowed to freely kill anyone who touches him - ooooohhh boi, the game will 1000% be seen as a murderbox, because the murderers are literally not punished.
Dolyem wrote: » What would exactly be your reasoning to go against designing a system that allows for non griefing PKing while simultaneously focusing punishment on griefing? Your goal seems less about mitigating griefing and more about punishing anyone who happens to PK someone who didn't fight back, justifiably or not.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » As for how many PKs should be happening. Imo <=1% of concurrents should be PKers (i.e. ~100 PKers across the entire map). This would then mean that around 2-3% would be victims. Absolute majority of those victims would come from places with valuable resources/mobs/bosses, so it'd be meaningful PKing. But, as Crow said, those PKers should only be able to do only a few kills at most, because after those they'll get hit with corruption-based stat dampening and shouldn't be able to kill more. Those few kills would create the 2-3% victims I mentioned, and would also give the PKers a PK count of ~3. Anything over this PK count should drastically increase the chance of dropping gear and should also give enough corruption to completely disable the PKer's combat ability. In other words, repeat killers wouldn't be able to do more than a single kill within a certain timeframe (balanced during A2). PK count reduction methods should be expensive as fuck, in terms of both time and resources/money. So anyone who wants to PK more often would have to spend their time reducing their PK count and earning money for that action, which in turn reduces their time PKing others. I'd personally also tie those methods to serving the nodes of the victims. I personally believe that this kind of system would keep the risk of getting ganked fairly high. Would keep the ability to PK someone when you really need to viable. Would bring node XP to the nodes of the victims. And, depending on how well the Guild/Node war declarations are balanced, would keep the unavoidable owPKing to a relatively low number. If people see 3% victims as "a murderbox" - I don't really know what to tell them
Dolyem wrote: » Any player should be able to defend themself from any attack.
Dolyem wrote: » So its purely a personal preference of yours that PKing should be practically nonexistent, as opposed to design corresponding with what Stevens Design may be?
Dolyem wrote: » By going this route, you are making bounty hunting irrelevant, youre erasing a majority of risk when entering the Open world, and making being the player who engages open world PvP extremely disincentivized to do so. I am a diehard PvPer and can tell you that if it is so punishing that only an average of 100ish players would likely ever risk a noncombatant PK at any given time, I would not only avoid initiating PVP completely, but I would actively not retaliate, as to cause corruption, flag as a bounty hunter (Or hit up a guildie who is one or have an alt account already flagged as one so I could find them on the map ASAP) and hunt them down for 4 times the reward every single time. With that strictness, you are making a faux opt-out/opt-in PVP system.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Any player should be able to defend themself from any attack. And as I keep saying, Reds are not players. They give up that right as soon as they become red. This is why they can't deposit things in storage, why they can't talk to npcs, why everyone can attack them for completely free, why BHs can track them. Dolyem wrote: » So its purely a personal preference of yours that PKing should be practically nonexistent, as opposed to design corresponding with what Stevens Design may be? As I've said before, Steven copied this system from L2 one-to-one, with the slight change to decrease what he sees as griefing (i.e repetitive PKing at scale). If he wanted PKers to be able to "defend themselves" - he would've changed the system more. So no, it's not just my personal preference. It's that my personal preference matches that of Stevens. Except, considering that he said it'd take way longer to clear corruption than it did in L2 - my preference is even laxer on the PKers than what he wants. Dolyem wrote: » By going this route, you are making bounty hunting irrelevant, youre erasing a majority of risk when entering the Open world, and making being the player who engages open world PvP extremely disincentivized to do so. I am a diehard PvPer and can tell you that if it is so punishing that only an average of 100ish players would likely ever risk a noncombatant PK at any given time, I would not only avoid initiating PVP completely, but I would actively not retaliate, as to cause corruption, flag as a bounty hunter (Or hit up a guildie who is one or have an alt account already flagged as one so I could find them on the map ASAP) and hunt them down for 4 times the reward every single time. With that strictness, you are making a faux opt-out/opt-in PVP system. Yes, you're thinking about it from the pov of a pvper, while I'm thinking about it from the pov of how the game will be seen by everyone. 100 PKers at any given time is not just "100 dudes killed 100 dudes, and are now just existing in the world". It's "100 dudes killed 100 dudes, then cleared their corruption because they were at PK count, then another 100 dudes kill another 100 dudes because the world is huge and there's a ton of content to fight over". It can be the same dudes that cleared their corruption after the first kill, or it could be their partymates to share the corruption rather than stack it, or it could be someone across the world. But this would still be quite a lot of murdering. But to make it clear once more, cause I don't remember if I've said this in this thread. PKING IS NOT PVPING. When you PK someone - you're hitting a passive target. There's no "versus" there. All the pvp for all the hardcore pvpers will be happening in nearly a dozen different avenues for proper pvp where both sides are fully aware of it and are prepared for it. This is one of the main reasons why I desperately want more info aboute guild wars, because their balance will be one of the main things to support my suggested corruption balancing. As for "most people just wouldn't fight back" - that's exactly what I want. That's exactly how those "100 dudes" would come to be. As I said in that quote, I expect majority of PKs to happen around valuable locations, which means that it's either a deep dungeon that takes quite a bit of time/effort to get to and/or a place that has great loot, so the victim would also think twice about dying with green penalties. But if they do - they'd need to be sure that they can get revenge on the PKer or at the very least that the PKer would get scared by the danger of being Red and leave that valuable location. Except, as I stated in other explanations of my preference for the system, I want first PKs to be cleansable within the rough amount of time required for the victim to return to the same spot. In other words, the PKer wouldn't be as scared about the situation, if they believe that they can cleanse their corruption fast enough. And if the victim doesn't come back fast enough, and/or if no one else has enough time to catch the PKer - we come to a mirror situation where the initial victim now has to decide whether the location is worth them going corrupt. Of course there's a chance that the PKer believes in their power strongly enough to just fight back, but that's a whole separate discussion. And if the location IS valuable enough - we have ourselves the second wave of the "PKer dude" that comprises my suggested <=1%. And if the initial victim simply tries to outfarm the PKer - it might lead to a second count for that PKer, which means a longer timer on the corruption cleansing, at which point there's a much higher chance for BHs to catch him and/or for the victim to get revenge (or for an opportunist to come along). But if the PKer is now scared enough to earn a new PK count - they gotta either outfarm the victim or spend their time carefully bringing down the victim's hp, to put pressure on them. This would then tie back to my insistence on invisible hp values, because visible ones make this approach dumb fucking easy, and I got no damn clue why Steven decided to go with them. But that is also a separate discussion. And so, if the PKer is not strong enough of a PvX player (i.e. can't outfarm someone in pve) and is scared of going too deep into Redness - they'll leave the location and the victim will keep farming. And imo that's how it should be, because I want pvxers to be the main playerbase. If someone can only do one thing - they should lose. This also applies to the victim, cause if they lose on the outfarm stage of the interaction - they'd need to either engage in pvp or move on. Also, if the PKer does only sit there constantly flagged by trying to keep the victim at low hp - the victim should call for help against a harasser and any pvp-enjoyer around can come kick the attacker's ass. What I've just described is pretty much any given day in L2 in any given semi-valuable location. Except more often than not people would simply fight each other for the spot, rather than toy around with the corruption system. But I've heard waaaaaay too many people claim that everyone's a fucking pussy now and would not fight back. Even your assumption that "it's better to just give them corruption" goes towards supporting that claim. I hope that losing more loot on green death will push people to fight back and that corruption does enough being balanced towards quick cleansing at < 3 PK count, but, as I said at the start of this comment - Steven has already said that their current plan is to have that cleanse time to be reaaaaaaal fucking long (cause even L2's was quite long, and my suggestion is more based on private server interactions where it was quite faster). So it's Steven that wants the system to be really harsh towards PKers - not me.
Dolyem wrote: » This is what the corruption system is for. Steven has indeed voiced his disdain for PKing, but if it wasnt clear to you that he was referring to PKing in relation to his definition of griefing, then I would argue that is clearly what he meant.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » This is what the corruption system is for. Steven has indeed voiced his disdain for PKing, but if it wasnt clear to you that he was referring to PKing in relation to his definition of griefing, then I would argue that is clearly what he meant. You ask me "why even have owpvp", then you link Steven saying "it's there to keep risk alive", while I literally told you that Steven's own current design is way harsher than what I'm suggesting I think your issue is not with my suggestion, but with Steven's own design. p.s. I also just said that I want majority of pvp to happen in wars (mainly guild ones), but there's also another almost dozen ways where it'll happen. And none of that pvp has death penalties, while all of it is in fact opt-in and both sides consenting to it. If you want to go around PKing people and then freely killing anyone who attacks you for PKing - this is not a game for you.
Dolyem wrote: » Stevens own design is to focus griefing, by his own words. By the current design, he has even suggested getting 10 PKs before even getting seriously affected by corruption, though that is just spitballing on his part. Even in that ranger video it suggests they are considering allowing some PKs to happen with little repercussions. You say its harsher than your suggestions yet you are saying you want none of that? Are we even following the same information?
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Stevens own design is to focus griefing, by his own words. By the current design, he has even suggested getting 10 PKs before even getting seriously affected by corruption, though that is just spitballing on his part. Even in that ranger video it suggests they are considering allowing some PKs to happen with little repercussions. You say its harsher than your suggestions yet you are saying you want none of that? Are we even following the same information? "10 PKs" was in the context of "you'll start feeling stat dampening in a significant way, not about anything else. And as I've been saying, there hasn't been a word about first kill not giving corruption. There has been this thoughA player's corruption score (corruption value) increases with each non-combatant player killed.[8][10][11][12] https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption I can't watch all the references from that list cause my electricity is about to go out, but I'd imagine none of those even imply "your first kill is free". And as I've said already, even at base lvl AoC's corruption balancing is more punishing than L2's, while what I'm suggesting is slightly less punishing than L2's balancing. This is why I'm saying that Steven's design is way harsher. You simply want way more PKing than either me or Steven want.
Dolyem wrote: » Neither of us can say exaclty how much PKing steven wants.
Dolyem wrote: » And I never said a first kill shouldnt give corruption, I said it should be less extreme punishment at a low level of corruption, such as 1 or 2 kills. And we have literally just watched a video showing such a case. Its not written in stone of course, but to sit there and act like its meaningless just because you dont agree with it is being disingenuous about the design possibilities.
Otr wrote: » PKing players for pleasure only can be rare. But if they have loot on them? Will dungeons feel like PvE areas?
